Sert, I take yr point about calls of hypocrisy not amounting to a head-on refutation of the accusation in question. And it's a reasonable point. Because person X is grossly obese does not give person Y the right to become grossly obese, and does not make obesity a good or acceptable thing. Fair 'nuff.

It does, however, give person Y the right to tell person X to STFU when it comes to self-righteous moralizing about obesity. When you are yourself a glutton, you lose the right to lecture others on the evils of gluttony, even if you're correct that gluttony is a Bad Thing.

This is especially true if you lecture and harp on gluttony when out of power and then set world records for gluttony when in power and then lecture about the evils of gluttony again when you're out of power...

By the way its utterly illogical to say, as our blogger does, that Krauthammer is a hypocrite because he finds controversial action X constitutional while finding a totally different action Y unconstitutional.

To be a hypocrite Krauthammer would have to have have found X constitutional before but find X unconstitutional now. Our blogger's charges depend on destroying the distinction between X and Y, which are actually totally different areas, security and commerce. He tries to destroy the distinction by saying both areas are about the "size, scope and reach of government" as if war powers and habeas corpus are just the same as what the constitution says about the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Heimdall, note that after reading Charles Krauthammer's article, our leftist blogger's mind immediately leapt at the chance to level accusations of hypocrisy. He had no substantive reply to Krauthammer's argument.

Note that Krauthammer's defenses of Bush's policies nowhere resorted to calling his opponents hypocrites and constructing moral equivalence arguments to confuse distinctions and change the subject. No, Krauthammer is better than that; he makes substantive arguments based on logic and historical precedent.

If Leftists refrained from calling people hypocrites and moral equivalizing they'd practically have no way to answer tough questions. Such as, is it constitutional for the Federal government to take over the auto industry and other great swaths of the private sector?

Sert, so it looks like a fight between the "you're a hypocrite and therefore have no credibility" argument on the left and the "I have amnesia and therefore can't be held accountable for my prior actions" argument on the right...

Leftists are so fond of arguement by accusation of hypocrisy (and its cousin, the moral equivalency arguement). Remember during the Cold War, if you asked the Soviets why they were doing XYZ horrible things the answer would come back "America is just as bad for doing ABC, and in fact you are hypocrites to accuse us of XYZ." No explanation of XYZ was forthcoming, just verbal handgrenades meant purely for obfuscation.

This is a fantastic way of sidestepping substantive arguements and it must be why Leftists love it. Rather than attempt to refute Krauthammer's sound arguement that the constitution provides no basis for the federal government to operate the automobile industry, they can sidestep the question with personal attacks, raise irrelevant new questions, and generally take the focus off of the issue at hand now.

Key difference:
Bush declared he had the right to declare any U.S. citizen to be an "enemy combatant" without any proof. Then, once that person is an "enemy combatant," he didn't have any rights. Therefore, Bush offered a mechanism for stripping the rights of Americans without their consent and without any accountability. "Anything the President does during a war is legal" is how Cheney summed up his view of executive power.

Obama declares he has the right to declare U.S. banks *that take TARP money* "insolvent" after doing stress tests. Then, once the banks are declared "insolvent," he can nationalize them, clear their balance sheets, and resell them. Therefore, he's offering a mechanism for nationalization of banks with their "indirect" consent (taking TARP money) and with accountability (behold the very public TARP Watchdog group...which unfortunately is not receiving as much cooperation from the Treasury as I would hope...)

The key difference in these "overreaches" in government is that with Obama, you can escape government control if you did nothing wrong by simply not taking bailout money or returning the bailout money.

What I would agree with is what I said earlier: there is no inherent logical contradiction in reading the constitution as granting differing levels of protection for economic liberties and civil liberties. Additionally, at the level of political philosophy--leaving entirely aside any questions of constitutionality--it is perfectly coherent to believe that the state should treat property claims differently than it does claims based upon fundamental civil rights. Of course, there is also nothing inherently contradictory with believing along with many libertarians that property rights should be treated in the same fashion as civil rights in general.

Comparing the actual conduct of Bush and Obama isn't nearly so clear cut as is delineating between what is and what isn't inherently contradictory.

E. A. Henriksen : So, with a different allocation of priorities (whether noneconomic civil liberties or economic civil liberties are more important), you would agree that it is just as logical to say Bush tromped on the constitution less than Obama?

It's really only possible to catch a glimpse of the supposed hypocrisy on display here if one views the situation entirely through a grossly oversimplistic libertarian lens. There is no inherent contradiction or hypocrisy involved in maintaining that civil liberties and economic liberties enjoy different levels of constitutional protection.

jayxray,
Actually, the Obama team said it would continue RENDITION and not the extraordinary sort (where torture lies at the other end). Rendition existed before Bush, what changed was that he turned a blind eye to where those captured would end up. True, Obama has left some wriggle room for what sorts of interrogation it considers appropriate, but no one can say that water boarding will again be amongst those. And, by pledging to adhere to the Geneva convention he is alluding to the fact that there will be an outright halt to the other sorts of torture Bush approved.

As for the people captured, while there are certainly those who were openly acting against the US there are also a number who were brought in simply because those who reported them wished to claim a bounty. There are presumed about 50-60 detainees that have been "cleared", but because of the stigma attached to the camp there has been trouble finding places to house them. Personally, I don't mind if some of them are moved to US soil... we do have a bloated prison system always looking for another reason for government funding and I fear some of the people from NBC's lockup more than some of the detainees in Guantanamo for no reason.

Hypocrisy must be running thick lately because you also practice it here. I agree that Krauthammer and his like are being hypocrites, but so is this post by presenting two shades of what amounts to a Utilitarian argument as though they are in opposition.

Politics should never be reduced to supporting the greater good at the cost of the lesser good. This is the rule of the majority, the essence of Democracy, which in effect always causes the minority to lose. For government to be for the people, it must be for all people.

The idea of big versus small government has been convoluted beyond all recognition. The real argument pertains to the centralization of powers, not the size of overall government. Both Obama and Bush further(ed) the goal of centralized power, but each has/had their own methods.

Government by the people relates directly to the proximity of government to its people. Therefore as a government centralizes its power, the people lose power. The original argument for small government is that the central government be lean, not the overall system. The central government must limit its power so as not to overwhelm the minority, for the only way for the minority to participate is to be close to the seat of power.

The overall government can be quite large if extended to State and local powers. But each level of governmental scope is what must be controlled so as to keep power within reach of the people. In this manner the actual size of government becomes quite large because the people are themselves part of the government.

It is folly to speak or write of a greater good when we cannot even agree upon what this good is. In fact, it is this discrepancy of goods that separates a majority from a minority. There is no difference between the end goal of either major American political party; both seek strong centralized power. The only difference is in their method of obtaining it.

Liberty must only be sacrificed when one’s liberty impedes the liberty of another. In the case of either Bush or Obama, liberty is sacrificed in the name of their own agenda of the greater good. Of course neither Bush nor Obama are utilitarians; their greater good is found in the mirror.

Who's torturing who to death? Which innocent victims? Do you mean people caught smuggling weapons or people setting IEDs? Because that's more in line with reality.

You aren't implying extraordinary rendition are you? Because President Obama has stated we will still continue with that practice. I hope you aren't talking about Guantanamo either, because it is no different than Bagram AB which the President says will stay open (because the 600 detainees there aren't mentioned in the media like the GITMO guys are).

Obama isn't really "trampling" the Constitution in his reckless pursuit of a government solution to every problem, if by "trampling" you mean going beyond the government's ennumerated powers and the judicial interpretations thereof. The Supreme Court long ago (see line of case law following the New Deal) removed any real constitutional constraints on the reach of the federal government by stretching the commerce clause beyond any rational reading of the text.

That said, Obama IS trying to radically change the role of government in our society. And he's doing it by fraud - lying to the American people and telling them that all these new government goodies will be paid for solely by taxing the unpopular "rich." Too bad no one is going to be able to put the brakes on this madness until the bill for Obama's recklessness hits the average american in the form of higher taxes and lower growth. And of course, by then it will be too late because gvoernmetn expansion is a one way ratchet.

No one listened to me when I advised casting a vote for divided government....

". . . a certain amount of liberty (whether it be economic or civil) is sacrificed for a 'greater good' that only the government can deliver."

I realize that this a blog for The Economist, and that mystery blogger "New York" may have his or her own views on certain civil liberty . . . issues . . . but surely one can agree that the people who "railed against Mr. Bush's anti-terrorism policies" are inherently more concerned with civil liberties than economic ones: the core criticism was not that the D.H.S. was encroaching on States' Rights and possibly violated the Commerce Clause, but that the Bush administration violated (or at least contemplated violating: see certain memos from the OLC) key provisions in the Bill of Rights (which are, I do not hesitate to point out, are usually considered to be *civil* rights).

To put it bluntly: as a value judgement call, many people view the torturing of innocent detainees to death (even if only a mere handful, and for a "greater good") to be a greater overall injustice than an increase in governmental spending, an expansion of the Federal government, or a 4% increase on marginal income tax rates.

Say what you will about this normative value judgement, it is entirely consistent (as opposed Mr. Krauthammer's cynicism). When the current administration advocates, oh, say torture and anti-torture activists do not criticize it you may have a point about equivalent hypocrisy. Until then: not so much.